Soooo, how is high-density looking to everyone now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

So if i wander out onto the Beltway on a skateboard, and I get killed, it's the car driver's fault, right?

Who said anything about fault?

The point is that cars are the danger. No cars, no danger.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-pedestrians-and-the-city-wont-stop-it/

[Anonymous]

I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-distri...bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-distri...bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

Corrected link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

So if i wander out onto the Beltway on a skateboard, and I get killed, it's the car driver's fault, right?

Who said anything about fault?

The point is that cars are the danger. No cars, no danger.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-pedestrians-and-the-city-wont-stop-it/

It's funny you should mention in NYC. NYC streets have been full of people walking and biking lately, and they recently broke a record: 58 deaths without a driver killing a pedestrian. Cars are the danger. No cars, no danger.

Also, between January 2014 and August 2019, 5 pedestrians were killed by bicyclists; over 700 pedestrians were killed by drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-distri...bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

A developer built your residence, no? And that was ok. But when a developer wants to build residences for other people, that's not ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-distri...bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

A developer built your residence, no? And that was ok. But when a developer wants to build residences for other people, that's not ok.

I guess we'll put you down in favor of pushing out black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The crux of the Mayors argument:

The holes in the mayor’s argument
THE IMPLICATIONS ON AFFORDABILITY,
EQUITY, & THE ENVIRONMENT OF
ALLOWING A VARIETY OF HOUSING
TYPES IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES

Increasing missing middle housing within single-family
zones will have significant equity, affordability, and
environmental impacts. Equity and housing affordability
are inextricably linked, because where a person can
afford to live impacts their access to opportunity. The
District’s legacy of discriminatory and exclusionary
land use decisions has contributed to persistent racial
and economic segregation. As a result, access to
opportunity varies considerably across different areas
of the District, including across different single-family
zones. [/i] inconvenient fact: according to a study of former racially exclusionary covenants and other restrictions, the neighborhoods is Ward 3, which the mayor targets for significant changes in density and multi family had relatively few such restraints compared to other areas of the District. The mayor’s base, Ward 4, had a relatively high number of such restrictions. Yet various Ward 4 neighborhoods actually get enhanced protections from major development in the amended comprehensive plan.

Therefore, single-family neighborhoods need
to be examined not as a singular neighborhood
type, but in the context of their area. Allowing for
additional housing types in high-opportunity, highcost single-family neighborhoods and single-family
neighborhoods near high-capacity transit will begin
to address inequity, provide additional affordable
housing options, and connect more residents with
opportunity. because nothing says addressing inequity and enhancing opportunity like building more high end condos in Ward 3!Furthermore, if homeowners in singlefamily zones choose to add additional housing to their
lot, it could provide them with an income stream that
may enable them to remain in their homes and build
wealth. From an environmental perspective, allowing
more housing in single-family zones can help to reduce
the environmental burden of the built environment we need to reduce the burden on the environment by reducing green space - get it?, by
promoting transit usage how’s promoting transit usage looking fer ya’ now?[i]and encouraging housing
types with a smaller energy footprint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

There are 359,000 cars registered in DC. How many people in DC ride bicycles? Maybe 500? There's hardly anyone who even rides bicycles in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-distri...bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

A developer built your infill residence in Ward 3, no? And that was ok. But when a developer wants to build residences for other people, that's not ok.

Corrected that for you - I doubt the PP has ever set foot in Petworth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should get rid of bike lanes. Hardly anyone uses them, and riding a bike in the city is really dangerous.

That's silly. Bikes aren't dangerous. Cars are dangerous - and not just to people riding bikes.

There are 359,000 cars registered in DC. How many people in DC ride bicycles? Maybe 500? There's hardly anyone who even rides bicycles in DC.

Riding a bike in DC is really dangerous, and hardly anybody rides a bike!

Huh.

Consider the possibility that reducing the danger (from cars) would increase the number of bike-riders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-distri...bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

A developer built your residence, no? And that was ok. But when a developer wants to build residences for other people, that's not ok.

I guess we'll put you down in favor of pushing out black people.

Why was it ok for a developer to build your home but not ok for a developer to build other homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nope you are wrong.

First of all you changed what I've been writing which has been to point out that no single family zones have been proposed for upzoning which remains true - no proposal has been sent anywhere to change the zoning on a single family lot anywhere in DC.

With regards to what has been floated, but not actually proposed, to allow more than single family homes in some zones is a change to the function of buildings in those zones not the form.

You are conflating, no doubt purposely because it suits your purpose here to scare everyone, form and function and suggesting changes that are not proposed.

Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?

You are correct. NOTHING has been changed at this point. However, all of this has been proposed through the COMP Plan. So I suppose you will always be correct, until it is passed and then you won't be correct. But then it will be too late I suppose.

What is being conflated?

"Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?" What? I actually have no idea what you are saying here. Not to worry. DCUM editing is not easy. If you are asking again for an example of how single family zoned housing has been proposed to be changed, you are playing a semantics game because we all know that it has not been changed. What has changed is another set of rules that CAN be applied on top of single family zoning which creates the impact that the Mayor wants WITHOUT changing the term Single Family Zoning.

Maybe I misunderstood what you typed. I am not sure. It was not clear to me.

You are being intentionally obtuse as you are counting on no one actually vetting any of your non-sense. But that probably happens a lot when you are sitting alone in your room being paranoid.

DCOP has sent a formal proposal to the DC Council to update the Comp Plan. Presumably at some point this fall, your bleatings here not withstanding, the DC Council will consider the proposal.

DCOP has written a report which they made public 3 weeks ago about what the impacts would be of loosening some of the use restrictions of single family homes within a half mile of Metrorail stations and high frequency bus routes. As there is no formal proposal there is nothing for the DC Council to consider at this time.

You are deliberately conflating the two things because you know that the proposed changes to the Comp Plan potentially impact a relatively small number of people in the city so you are muddying the waters with this non-sense about something that is not a proposal.

Here is one not very in depth article about the REPORT DCOP issued a few weeks ago:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/office-of-planning-recommends-gentle-density-in-transit-accessible-corridor/16763

And the actual report:

https://plandc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/Comprehensiveplan/007_Single%20Family%20Housing%20Report.pdf

The report doesn't make any specific recommendations and is not a proposal so you don't know that any of the crap you've been dropping in this thread will ever be proposed.

But I suspect you know that other cities that have loosened up or banned single family zoning have not in other cities changed the form of what can be built but just the function. Which is to say that a building that conforms to the lot occupancy, side yard and rear yard requirements and height limit that in the past could only be a single family home could now be a duplex. Or several condos.

DC essentially took this step 5 years ago when they more or less legalized Accessory Dwelling Units in single family (and semi and detached) zones. Which is to say houses that legally used to only be able to have one dwelling unit can now have two.

The house doesn't change but the units within it would.

But you knew that already and aren't here to clarify things but to conflate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's funny you should mention in NYC. NYC streets have been full of people walking and biking lately, and they recently broke a record: 58 deaths without a driver killing a pedestrian. Cars are the danger. No cars, no danger.

Also, between January 2014 and August 2019, 5 pedestrians were killed by bicyclists; over 700 pedestrians were killed by drivers.

Argh. 58 DAYS without a driver killing a pedestrian.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-city-breaks-record-58-straight-days-pedestrian/story?id=70654065

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope you are wrong.

First of all you changed what I've been writing which has been to point out that no single family zones have been proposed for upzoning which remains true - no proposal has been sent anywhere to change the zoning on a single family lot anywhere in DC.

With regards to what has been floated, but not actually proposed, to allow more than single family homes in some zones is a change to the function of buildings in those zones not the form.

You are conflating, no doubt purposely because it suits your purpose here to scare everyone, form and function and suggesting changes that are not proposed.

Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?

You are correct. NOTHING has been changed at this point. However, all of this has been proposed through the COMP Plan. So I suppose you will always be correct, until it is passed and then you won't be correct. But then it will be too late I suppose.

What is being conflated?

"Please show where in the proposal the form of what can be built in a single family zone is proposed to be changed?" What? I actually have no idea what you are saying here. Not to worry. DCUM editing is not easy. If you are asking again for an example of how single family zoned housing has been proposed to be changed, you are playing a semantics game because we all know that it has not been changed. What has changed is another set of rules that CAN be applied on top of single family zoning which creates the impact that the Mayor wants WITHOUT changing the term Single Family Zoning.

Maybe I misunderstood what you typed. I am not sure. It was not clear to me.

You are being intentionally obtuse as you are counting on no one actually vetting any of your non-sense. But that probably happens a lot when you are sitting alone in your room being paranoid.

DCOP has sent a formal proposal to the DC Council to update the Comp Plan. Presumably at some point this fall, your bleatings here not withstanding, the DC Council will consider the proposal.

DCOP has written a report which they made public 3 weeks ago about what the impacts would be of loosening some of the use restrictions of single family homes within a half mile of Metrorail stations and high frequency bus routes. As there is no formal proposal there is nothing for the DC Council to consider at this time.

You are deliberately conflating the two things because you know that the proposed changes to the Comp Plan potentially impact a relatively small number of people in the city so you are muddying the waters with this non-sense about something that is not a proposal.

Here is one not very in depth article about the REPORT DCOP issued a few weeks ago:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/office-of-planning-recommends-gentle-density-in-transit-accessible-corridor/16763

And the actual report:

https://plandc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/Comprehensiveplan/007_Single%20Family%20Housing%20Report.pdf

The report doesn't make any specific recommendations and is not a proposal so you don't know that any of the crap you've been dropping in this thread will ever be proposed.

But I suspect you know that other cities that have loosened up or banned single family zoning have not in other cities changed the form of what can be built but just the function. Which is to say that a building that conforms to the lot occupancy, side yard and rear yard requirements and height limit that in the past could only be a single family home could now be a duplex. Or several condos.

DC essentially took this step 5 years ago when they more or less legalized Accessory Dwelling Units in single family (and semi and detached) zones. Which is to say houses that legally used to only be able to have one dwelling unit can now have two.

The house doesn't change but the units within it would.

But you knew that already and aren't here to clarify things but to conflate them.

Hmmm...I don't think you have read the Comp Plan or the Report. That much is apparent from your musings. You linked the report so I'll spare you linking it again so that you can read its recommendations you could not find, but I'll include the following just in case you missed the term 'recommendations'.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends that the District pursue gentle
density in single-family zones in a targeted manner that
prioritizes neighborhoods that are high-opportunity,
high-cost, or near high-capacity transit. An important
element of this recommendation is ensuring that
the District maintains and grows a supply of familysized units as land uses change from single-family to
multifamily.

[Anonymous]

DP. Turning a one-unit house into a two-unit house - same house - would change the land use from single-family to multi-family. Just saying.